Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
This was in response to a comment made by @ndj1979 on political correctness. I agree that this did not occur within the thread. Merely making a point that justification of bad actions makes for poor policy.
I think the whole "mansplaining" thing got spun off int a conversation on political correctness gone wild..2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
This was in response to a comment made by @ndj1979 on political correctness. I agree that this did not occur within the thread. Merely making a point that justification of bad actions makes for poor policy.
Do you think that political correctness was taking place in this thread? The statement "Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners" was made, I think, by you. If political correctness is happening in this thread and the tyranny of political correctness is silencing people, shouting them down, responding with physical violence -- I'm not seeing the connection.
Or do you think that political correctness *isn't* happening in this thread and the conversation was organically moving to describe campus protests and things like that instead of the conversation in this thread?
(By the way, if those aren't your words, I apologize -- there have been a lot of responses and I don't want to attribute words to the wrong person).4 -
I'm a big grouch in general, though. Probably too much water! ;-)[/quote]
If you are drinking to the point of hyponatremia, that could account for it....:)
just kidding. I probably shouldn't kid about hyponatremia...
I'm a grouch, too, but don't really have an excuse.
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
No one has done that here, and yet people have complained that the reaction is PC and therefore bad.
janejellyroll is precisely right -- part of free speech/the exchange of ideas is accepting that people may have negative reactions to your ideas and express their own contrary ideas.
This is actually why the idea that no one should disagree about nutrition stuff, because disagreement = negative is so terrible.
i never said anyone did that here...
Yes, that is part of free speech, and the other side of is that people may say things about you that you don't like; however, it does not make one a racist, bigot, etc, etc...
What you say may or may not provide evidence that one is a racist, bigot, etc. It depends on what you say. But no need to go there in this thread now, IMO.
Your link in response to jane's post suggested to me that you were equating what was going on here to protesters trying to prevent a speaker from speaking, at Berkeley. I think a more analogous situation would exist if people were not just commenting on Jason's (or whoever's) post, but asking that it be deleted, and I saw absolutely no indication that anyone was trying to prevent Jason from speaking, but just commenting on what he said.
I think goofy things get said on MFP all the time, and generally I think the answer is more speech. I'm actually much more open to more speech as the correct response, always, than MFP itself is (which is cool, they run the site, I don't, and deciding what the limits of debate are here is part of their freedom to control their own forum).7 -
jseams1234 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
Multiple posts were flagged more than a few times in this thread - in an attempt to silence an unpopular opinion.
I hadn't noticed. And I was so trying to be on my best and nicest behavior.4 -
mom2kateRH wrote: »If you are drinking to the point of hyponatremia, that could account for it....:)
just kidding. I probably shouldn't kid about hyponatremia...
Hyponatremia is at least part of why I AM a grouch about some of the stuff, though -- not that I am suffering from it, but I think the idea that drinking crazy amounts of water and more is always better and being competitive about it can be dangerous. I mean, it's probably not likely to be, but there have been cases where it is.2 -
jseams1234 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
Multiple posts were flagged more than a few times in this thread - in an attempt to silence an unpopular opinion.
Ah, I didn't notice that. Thank you for clarifying. I personally think flagging posts on the basis of disagreement is inappropriate.13 -
clicketykeys wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
It's entirely possible that it has to do with where you're standing and how you're dressed vs your gender.
So what's your theory for why we don't hear guys complaining how their customers refuse to accept their answer and then accept the same information from a female coworker nearly as often? Do you think women are just more sensitive and less capable of observing events rationally?
So your saying this never, ever happens??
Well, she did say "why don't we hear . . . nearly as often".
I'm thinking there's a hint about the answer to your question in there somewhere.
Perhaps its because "guys" are conditioned/trained/nurtured to desire, embrace, pursue, accept, and flourish in opposition and adversity..
That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point at hand - the observation that more women than men say they experience having their knowledge and expertise shown disrespect by people not listening to them, explaining things to them that they already know, and/or talking over them, and in many cases listening instead to a male with less knowledge or expertise.
What does being trained to flourish in adversity have to do with this?
Men experience disrespect and move on. They don't talk about it *In Public*. and they generally don't complain about how someone disrespected their "nametag and certification".
For the record anyone... male or female who demands respect based on a "nametag and certificate" isn't likely to get it.
IMO, a nametag and a certificate are a better reason for professional respect than gender, which is the main variable being discussed. Additionally, the certificate is a mark of the person's knowledge and expertise, which are the points I specifically mentioned.
We're also talking about a specific sort of disrespect - being ignored in favor of someone with less knowledge or expertise. Are you claiming that men experience that at an equivalent rate to women? And if so, why is it being hushed up? Because not only do I not hear men complain about it, I haven't witnessed it - while I have witnessed it happen to women, as well as experiencing it myself.
To clarify: I'm not saying that men don't experience disrespect. My claim is that this particular type of disrespect is significantly more often experienced by women, and in those cases, usually perpetuated by men.
That is most definitely gender neutral. It is one of the most irritating thing about any workplace and I've never been able to get away from it.
Today, I get to attend a meeting put together by executives over the explicit protests of the experts on the topic at hand - because the meeting is too soon and will be a complete waste of time and money. The executives in this case? Both women. The ones being ignored as too ignorant to make a salient point? Both men and women (mostly men - I'm in a male-dominated field).1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »Mansplaining isn't a thing. Just because a man can't experience something personally, doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it.
... And before you say 'I' am mansplaining, if you are still deludedly adament that I am, the same can in turn be applied to women. You don't know what men are experiencing, so don't 'womansplain'... Oh wait, does that sound ridiculous?
If mansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter (incorrectly) telling me how their car works when I'm a certified automotive technician and automotive parts person with over 17 years of experience in the industry? If illakso domansplaining is not a thing, why do I have men at my parts counter arguing with me when they have come to the dealership to tap my knowledge and experience? (Like the tardball I just got off the phone with insisting that a wire is run directly from the battery to his 7-pin hitch connector only moments ago). If mansplaining is not a thing, why are there men at my parts counter who do not believe me when I tell them something but have no trouble believing any one of the men I work with when they say the exact same thing as I just did?
How about you GTFOH with your "mansplaining is not a thing" garbage?
I would 'awesome' and 'insightful' this times six if I could.
Nice guys: Pay attention around you. There are men (a.k.a. arrogant jerks) around you who do this to woman experts who would not do it to you, even if you're an innocent amateur. Some of them will also do it to other men they implicitly perceive as down-status: Men of color, men who are not native born or for whom their (fluent, yet accented) English is not their first language, even men with certain regional accents in some cases. (P.S. This is why I don't use the term "mansplaining" other than in extreme jest: It's really about implicitly perceived general power, knowedge, dominance. Gender is just one case.)
You're a Good Guy. Don't concede to facile assumptions that others are nice like you. Notice. Counter.
The problem with this is that by using such a prejudicial term you have lumped all men - good and bad together, so we now hang based on the lowest common denominator.
This doesn't further the discussion or resolve the issue. Call out the individual for bad behavior.
Just to be clear: I explicitly distanced myself from the "prejudicial term" - assuming you mean "mansplaining". I explained that I think that some men, i.e. a certain subset who are arrogant jerks, do pretty much the same thing to other men they perceive as down-status from them.
I'd equally agree that certain women who are arrogant jerks do the same thing to both men and women they perceive as down-status, but (1) that wasn't what we were discussing, and (2) I think it's somewhat less common a scenario.
This is about as close to calling out individuals as one can get in a broad discussion, I think. I've called individual people out for it in real life - for talking down to others in an arrogant way, based on (frankly) prejudiced assumptions they were making (i.e., not for "mansplaining").
I've asked that decent men who don't treat women in the ways described up-thread please just notice that this stuff actually happens (and, by implication, believe the women who say it does). It's frequent, it's routine. It's because of some people's (some men's) perceptions about women. It's about gender, in these specific cases.
I spent 30 years in IT, starting when there weren't many women. It's happened to me, and the few women around me in that work setting, over, and over, and over -
men talking to less-expert men when I was the expert; men trying to make deals with men whose manager I was when I was present; etc. I'm not someone who sees sexism behind every shrub, whether it's present or not.
It's a thing, whether you have a special prejudicial word for it or not.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is anyone refusing to believe that *kitten* inhabit the world? This is strawman construction. If we must down this road, then yes I've been wronged by men and women, but I focused ill thoughts to that individual and did not prosecute an entire gender based on the actions of a bad actor.
It happens to anyone entering a gender dominated field. Weak minds are easily threatened by competition. Male nurses, female engineers, etc. What is the end goal of this?
Simply call out bad behavior. I am no more responsible for the actions of a bad acting male than you are a bad acting female.
Hard to believe anyone is actually wasting time defending a prejudicial term.
the end goal is that we all have to acknowledge every groups grievance no matter how ridiculous in the name of the all knowing god of political correctness. Honestly, this is just another way to divide people into groups and then pit them against each other.
Exactly - Political correctness has been and always will be tyranny disguised as manners. Very attractive at first when you are a member of the deemed victimized demographic, but this is fleeting once you have served your purpose and those in power have moved on to the next divide and conquer tactic.
Agreed - it basically starts off as "free speech" and then turns to fascism/tyranny because other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc, etc...
If the argument is that people can't say anything critical because they don't like what people *might* say back to them, that's not a very robust argument for how political correctness is tyranny.
You're just imposing an expectation for silence on a different group of people, that's all.
I fully believe that those who have negative things to say about groups of people should be able to express their thoughts. People in those groups (or others who have a reaction to it) should have the same freedom to express their thoughts about those statements.
If a man wants to talk to me in a certain way, he should have every right to do so. Why would someone who also believes that think that I should stifle anything I wish to express in return because he doesn't like being called sexist?
no, my argument is that these affected groups want free speech, but if you dare and try and challenge anything they say, they then shut you down....
see Berkeley as the most recent example...
I wasn't thinking of Berkeley because what you wrote was "Other people then cannot say anything critical of the affected group, because they are then immediately branded as racist, bigoted, sexist, etc."
If you're talking about not being able to speak at a university, that seems to be a separate topic. What I was responding to was the claim that a negative verbal/written reaction to one's words somehow represents tyranny.
In a society with free speech, it seems to me that it goes both ways. Sometimes when you say something someone doesn't appreciate, they will exercise their free speech in response. Setting aside the separate, contentious, issue of protests and counter-protests at universities, do you object to people responding to a negative or critical statement made about a group with a written or verbal critique?
This is the beauty and peril inherent with the freedom of speech. You are certainly able to exercise your freedom and the government is forced by law to ensure that this occurs, but if your words are not received well then you may suffer consequences.
The difference in political correctness is that speech/thought differing from those in power is silenced, shouted down, responded to with physical violence.
So why did we begin talking about political correctness in regard to this thread? Nobody has been threatened, nobody has been silenced, nobody has been shouted down. There were statements made with strong language, there were vigorous responses, people were able to clarify or repeat their original opinion. What is the relationship to the type of situation you just described?
Multiple posts were flagged more than a few times in this thread - in an attempt to silence an unpopular opinion.
Ah, I didn't notice that. Thank you for clarifying. I personally think flagging posts on the basis of disagreement is inappropriate.
Yeah, agree, and it happens too much on MFP. I think people want a passive way of expressing disapprove and don't realize that's not really what it's for.4 -
I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.21
-
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not literally :P0 -
I think most objections to "eat what you want within your calories" assume, weirdly, that people won't want to eat a balanced diet or will want to eat a nutrient poor or even all junk food diet and won't care how the diet makes him or her feel in deciding what he or she wants to do.
I often (perhaps unfairly) wonder why the person is making those assumptions -- would that person actually WANT to eat a low nutrient diet and not eat vegetables, etc? Or does that person just look down on others and assume they aren't sensible?10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not literally :P
I guess I don't understand how someone who understands how much energy their body needs and consistently consumes that amount of energy is still a fatty on the inside. I became fat because I disregarded how much energy my body needed. Adjusting that changed the situation. But you're arguing that if I don't meet certain nutritional standards (as determined by you), I might still be considered fat?3 -
-
I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
and 99.9% of those comments say eat whatever you like but also make sure that you get adequate nutrition and macros..
I have yet to find this mythical person advocating for a diet of 100% cookies as long as it fits your calories...6 -
I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
So is your belief that the advice of "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" is meant to suggest that a person wouldn't eat a balanced diet and would be lacking in key nutrients? That what a person wants to eat is a diet of nothing but donuts or doritos or something like that, up to their calorie alotment? And that they would then suffer malnutrition and be "fatty on the inside" (still not sure what that means).
You don't interpret that advice that it's ok to eat A donut or A serving of doritos on occasion, in the context of an otherwise balanced and healthy diet?
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Not literally :P
I guess I don't understand how someone who understands how much energy their body needs and consistently consumes that amount of energy is still a fatty on the inside. I became fat because I disregarded how much energy my body needed. Adjusting that changed the situation. But you're arguing that if I don't meet certain nutritional standards (as determined by you), I might still be considered fat?
sounds like he is making the mythical connection that anyone who says it is OK to eat within your calories and you will still lose weight, is advocating for a diet of 100% oreos, or something...2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Not literally :P
I guess I don't understand how someone who understands how much energy their body needs and consistently consumes that amount of energy is still a fatty on the inside. I became fat because I disregarded how much energy my body needed. Adjusting that changed the situation. But you're arguing that if I don't meet certain nutritional standards (as determined by you), I might still be considered fat?
I know I did the same thing.
I went from walking 15-20 miles daily just for basic transportation, and working on my feet 30-40 hours a week to a relatively sedentary lifestyle... It happened in phases, and I was still walking A LOT as I went from 5'11" and 145 to 185 lbs... then I got a car and got married and went to 220.. then 230.. then 240.. then 260.. then 265... and now back to 235...4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most objections to "eat what you want within your calories" assume, weirdly, that people won't want to eat a balanced diet or will want to eat a nutrient poor or even all junk food diet and won't care how the diet makes him or her feel in deciding what he or she wants to do.
I often (perhaps unfairly) wonder why the person is making those assumptions -- would that person actually WANT to eat a low nutrient diet and not eat vegetables, etc? Or does that person just look down on others and assume they aren't sensible?
Yes, this, you beat me to it and worded it much better.
I would love for someone to answer the questions you posed in the second paragraph, does @tapwaters want to eat a diet of nothing but "junk"? Does he think that other people want to eat this way? And why does he think that?2 -
I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most objections to "eat what you want within your calories" assume, weirdly, that people won't want to eat a balanced diet or will want to eat a nutrient poor or even all junk food diet and won't care how the diet makes him or her feel in deciding what he or she wants to do.
I often (perhaps unfairly) wonder why the person is making those assumptions -- would that person actually WANT to eat a low nutrient diet and not eat vegetables, etc? Or does that person just look down on others and assume they aren't sensible?
Yes, this, you beat me to it and worded it much better.
I would love for someone to answer the questions you posed in the second paragraph, does @tapwaters want to eat a diet of nothing but "junk"? Does he think that other people want to eat this way? And why does he think that?
From some of this other posts I think he may be vegan and against barbaric/cruel meat eating - but that wouldn't explain the comment or the "fatty on the inside" bit. I think maybe he just thinks that some foods are "clean" and others inherently "dirty". It's a common belief if you go by all the clean eating threads around here.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
It's much more likely that incorporating those "treats" into a deficit will build the habits over time to prevent them from exceeding their calories on maintenance.
Also, I don't know why it's unreasonable to monitor intake for a lifetime.
11 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
I think it's much less realistic to expect people to avoid all foods that they enjoy and don't fit into (sometimes subjective) categories for the rest of their lives.
14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
I think it's much less realistic to expect people to avoid all foods that they enjoy for the rest of their lives.
This is the primary reason that most "diets" fail long term.9 -
stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
It's much more likely that incorporating those "treats" into a deficit will build the habits over time to prevent them from exceeding their calories on maintenance.
Also, I don't know why it's unreasonable to monitor intake for a lifetime.
I agree, I think people are far better off incorporating treats, but to say "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" I don't believe is good because I don't think that's what people should be doing. I think they should be eating a nutrient dense diet and allowing themselves treats when they need them.
Also there is a small group of people that have their health and diet at a high enough priority in their lives to even make healthier food choices and quantities to begin with, so I believe it is very unreasonable to expect for people to be counting their calories for a lifetime, most cannot even consistently do it to lose and maintain a substantial amount of weight even when their health is in jeopardy.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
I think it's much less realistic to expect people to avoid all foods that they enjoy and don't fit into (sometimes subjective) categories for the rest of their lives.
I agree1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
It's much more likely that incorporating those "treats" into a deficit will build the habits over time to prevent them from exceeding their calories on maintenance.
Also, I don't know why it's unreasonable to monitor intake for a lifetime.
I agree, I think people are far better off incorporating treats, but to say "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" I don't believe is good because I don't think that's what people should be doing. I think they should be eating a nutrient dense diet and allowing themselves treats when they need them.
Also there is a small group of people that have their health and diet at a high enough priority in their lives to even make healthier food choices and quantities to begin with, so I believe it is very unreasonable to expect for people to be counting their calories for a lifetime, most cannot even consistently do it to lose and maintain a substantial amount of weight even when their health is in jeopardy.
who is this person advocating a nutrient deficient diet and saying eat cookies all day but stay under your calories and you will be fine? I just want someone to tell me who this person is that is making this claim..????4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
It's much more likely that incorporating those "treats" into a deficit will build the habits over time to prevent them from exceeding their calories on maintenance.
Also, I don't know why it's unreasonable to monitor intake for a lifetime.
I agree, I think people are far better off incorporating treats, but to say "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" I don't believe is good because I don't think that's what people should be doing. I think they should be eating a nutrient dense diet and allowing themselves treats when they need them.
Also there is a small group of people that have their health and diet at a high enough priority in their lives to even make healthier food choices and quantities to begin with, so I believe it is very unreasonable to expect for people to be counting their calories for a lifetime, most cannot even consistently do it to lose and maintain a substantial amount of weight even when their health is in jeopardy.
who is this person advocating a nutrient deficient diet and saying eat cookies all day but stay under your calories and you will be fine? I just want someone to tell me who this person is that is making this claim..????
I think sometimes it comes from this assumption that anyone with excess weight is eating 100% non-nutrient dense foods. But even people with room to make improvements in their diets probably aren't eating purely non-nutrient dense foods. They're probably eating a combination of different foods, adding up to excessive calories.
So when the statement is made that one can "eat what they like," people with this assumption assume that we're recommending that people live on potato chips and Skittles, ignoring that the person we're speaking to is also eating things like chicken and apples and cereal and broccoli and eggs and etc already.
Are there people who are eating really poorly? Without a doubt. But that doesn't mean that many people aren't meeting their nutritional needs already -- in the context of eating too many calories -- and they just need to adjust their calories to be successful.
And even the person who is eating poorly (meaning the context of their diet overall) will still be better off if they just eat *less* of what they're eating.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
It's much more likely that incorporating those "treats" into a deficit will build the habits over time to prevent them from exceeding their calories on maintenance.
Also, I don't know why it's unreasonable to monitor intake for a lifetime.
I agree, I think people are far better off incorporating treats, but to say "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" I don't believe is good because I don't think that's what people should be doing. I think they should be eating a nutrient dense diet and allowing themselves treats when they need them.
Also there is a small group of people that have their health and diet at a high enough priority in their lives to even make healthier food choices and quantities to begin with, so I believe it is very unreasonable to expect for people to be counting their calories for a lifetime, most cannot even consistently do it to lose and maintain a substantial amount of weight even when their health is in jeopardy.
who is this person advocating a nutrient deficient diet and saying eat cookies all day but stay under your calories and you will be fine? I just want someone to tell me who this person is that is making this claim..????
No one claimed that there was bud, neither me or tapwaters had said that..... You keep coming back to this as if we were implying that, what I (as I don't want to speak for him) am saying is that, by just saying that they can eat whatever they want to eat under a certain calorie amount is reckless because there will be people who read that and actually just go eat poor quality foods. I am not saying that anyone here (or anywhere) is advocating for people to eat junk all day, but to me, when you say "eat what anything as long as it's under your calories" may cause people to have trouble with their weight in the future when they do not meticulously count their calories if they have not learned to properly feed their body and listen to their body.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions